Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Think about it! Incest simply concentrates genes. Generally this means bad ones, because they're the ones which are prone to be recessive (if they weren't you'd be dead) and someone in your family would be more likely have more copies of em than someone else at random in the population. So your children are statistically more likely to come out with with those genes expressed, which in general again are the bad ones (the good ones would likely be dominant since they confer competitive advantage.. etcetc.. 101 ftw). Inbreeding depression would only result further down the line.. blahblah..

On the other hand.. what if you were bringing together superior genes? As in, really really superior genes? Yeah. That's right.

No liabilities will be accepted for any loss, damage, disability or death resulting either directly or indirectly from this message.

Just a nitpick but i think you might have a misunderstanding of dominant/ recessive genes. A recessive gene is no more likely to be bad/harmful then a dominant gene and just as many gentic disorders are cause by bad Dominant genes, it's just the ones that are detramental to the point of not being able to reproduce get weeded out of the gene pool fairly quickly. And no matter how advantagous a gene is a recessive gene will never become a dominant gene. It may become a common gene in a population if the dominant gene causes too big of a disadvanage to breeding.

__________________

Higurashi: Its a bit like watching a trainwreck, except you keep getting to see different trains wrecking with roughly the same passengers, into a variety of different objects. Also, the trains are driven by monkeys. On LSD.
click to play

Just a nitpick but i think you might have a misunderstanding of dominant/ recessive genes. A recessive gene is no more likely to be bad/harmful then a dominant gene and just as many gentic disorders are cause by bad Dominant genes, it's just the ones that are detramental to the point of not being able to reproduce get weeded out of the gene pool fairly quickly. And no matter how advantagous a gene is a recessive gene will never become a dominant gene. It may become a common gene in a population if the dominant gene causes too big of a disadvanage to breeding.

The idea is that if a gene is dominant, it will be expressed more. Hence there are very few disadvantageous dominant genes simply because a disadvantageous gene will inevitably affect reproductive fitness in comparison to organisms without it. Maybe not in a few generations, since the environment plays a large part, but definitely over this amount of time.

Which is why most disadvantageous are recessive, because statstically speaking since heterozygotes show no/lesser symptoms there will be fewer offspring with the disadvantageous phenotype than if the trait was dominant. Which is also why incest tends to bring out recessives, because said genes are generally pretty spread out so if your family happens to have copies of them then it's more likely your siblings will also have said gene than someone random off the street. Statistically. I'm pretty sure you know the mechanics. The point being that more recessives are disadvantageous than advantageous because if they were bad they'd get lost and if they were good they'd confer advantage and gradually become dominant. We won't go into heterozygote advantage or anything that complicates things..

Wait. I'm meant to be supporting Her Highness here. Yeah. So just because it's recessive doesn't mean it's bad. Wait. That was your position.

The idea is that if a gene is dominant, it will be expressed more. Hence there are very few disadvantageous dominant genes simply because a disadvantageous gene will inevitably affect reproductive fitness in comparison to organisms without it. Maybe not in a few generations, since the environment plays a large part, but definitely over this amount of time.

Sorry i can't stand sloppy science, it's a pet pevee. I am takeing from the way you have both worded this statement and your last one that if a trait is common the gene is dominant, not that because a gene is dominant it is common. This is where I percive the flaw in your statement. Here are some examples of how dominant and recessive genes work.
Let B= brown eyes and b= Blue eyes and there are 3 people 1 who has blue eyes (bb) and 2 who has brown eyes (BB) and 3 who also has brown eyes (Bb).
any kids between 1 and 2 will always have brown eyes since they will always get a dominant brown eye gene, either (Bb) or (bB) on the other hand kids from 1 and 3 have a 50% chance of haveing a blue eye kid (Bb)(bb).

Now even if you remove all the people with brown eyes from the population so everyone is born with blue eyes, blue eyes is still a recessive gene and not a dominant one.

If this is not what you ment I apoligize it just was not worded well then. now back to more of the cute girls

__________________

Higurashi: Its a bit like watching a trainwreck, except you keep getting to see different trains wrecking with roughly the same passengers, into a variety of different objects. Also, the trains are driven by monkeys. On LSD.
click to play

Oh. Hm. Well, I was speaking with Her Highness in mind so my analogies were based solely around phenotypes which affect reproductive fitness and the genes which would influence them. Which would make for terrible scientific theory if you applied it to genetics in general I guess.

I do get that just because a gene is dominant doesn't mean it's more common, simply expressed more. Recessives by the same logic aren't less common. However when you throw in phenotypic consequences, incomplete/semi-dominance and the like then stuff gets more complicated.

Er. Yeah, let's not have science. We'll just assume that if they can do magic they can fiddle around with the genome and smooth out any complications.

OMG when Mayumi complements Tatsuya on his tests to Miyuki, would you check out that look, she's simply over the moon!
Then there's when Tatsuya does the same about her speech, god she's sooooooooo HHNNNGH!

Interesting info about Honoka, didn't expect to find out she's got that trait but that leads to knowing a little more about Tatsuya which is cool.

Funny how it all works out with that, as Manga does stuff a LN can't do where as a LN can do stuff a manga can't do and same with anime.
Now if you could somehow integrate all 3 into one super thingy then you'd have no probs

Short chapter but great reading, find myself liking Mari more and more.